Show the following sequence as a monotone increasing

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cbarker1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Increasing Sequence
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The sequence defined by the terms ${x}_{n} \in S$ with the condition ${x}_{n-1} < x_{n} \le \sup S$ for all $n \ge 2$ is proven to be monotone increasing. The inequality ${x}_{n-1} < x_{n}$ establishes strict monotonicity, confirming that the sequence is indeed monotone increasing. The supremum of the set $S$ does not affect this conclusion, as the critical factor is the strict inequality between consecutive terms.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of sequences and their properties in real analysis
  • Familiarity with the concept of supremum in set theory
  • Knowledge of monotonicity definitions, specifically strict monotonicity
  • Basic mathematical proof techniques
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of monotonic sequences in real analysis
  • Learn about supremum and infimum in the context of bounded sets
  • Explore examples of strict vs. non-strict monotonicity
  • Practice constructing proofs for sequences using mathematical induction
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in mathematics, particularly those focusing on real analysis, sequence convergence, and proof techniques.

cbarker1
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
345
Reaction score
23
Dear Everyone, Here is the sequence: Let $S\subset\Bbb{R}$ and ${x}_{n}\in S$ and $S\ne\emptyset$ . ${x}_{n-1}<{x}_{n}\le\sup S$ for all $n\ge2$. Prove the sequence is monotone increasing.

I need help proving it; I do not know where to start? Thanks
Carter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm confused: Isn't this already given since $x_{n-1} < x_n$ for all $n \ge 2$, assuming $x_1$ is the first term in the sequence?
 
The assumption is correct where ${x}_{1}$ is given. So I can say the sequence is monotone increasing?
 
Yes. I mean, you are given terms $x_n$ in a set $S$ such that $x_{n-1} < x_n$ for all $n \ge 2$.
That latter inequality is the definition of strict monotonicity, so if the exercise really reads like this, then I cannot see what you would have to do else. (The supremum does not play any role, either.)

Anyone else here on board that sees something I overlooked?
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K